{
  "id": "RL30574",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30574",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101935,
      "date": "2000-05-30",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:36:34.355941",
      "title": "Defense Outsourcing: OMB Circular A-76 Policy And Options for Congress -- Proceedings of a CRS Seminar",
      "summary": "On April 13, 2000, the Congressional Research Service sponsored a policy seminar, for\nMembers\nof Congress and staff, entitled \"Defense Outsourcing: OMB Circular A-76 and Options for\nCongress.\" This report summarizes that seminar.\n  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 has long been viewed, by some,\nas a management reform tool to facilitate government outsourcing. The policy of transferring to the\nprivate sector functions performed by government employees dates back to the Eisenhower\nAdministration. In 1966, the effort was codified through OMB Circular A-76. Executive branch\nagencies, like the Department of Defense (DOD), have relied on the Circular's guidelines and\nprocedures for determining whether commercial activities should be performed by the private sector,\nor by government sources. Since the end of the Cold War, DOD has substantially reduced its force\nstructure; however, defense operations and support costs have not diminished proportionately to the\nsize of the force. As a result, DOD has sought to reduce spending to achieve greater savings to\nfinance weapons and military equipment modernization. Without additional base realignment and\nclosures (BRAC), DOD seeks savings through a greater reliance on managed competitions through \napplication of OMB Circular A-76. \n  This seminar focused on DOD's efforts to encourage greater use of the Circular as a mechanism\nfor increased competition in the marketplace. The seminar panel comprised a senior DOD official,\nthe President and Chief Executive Officer of a defense trade association, and a defense policy analyst\nfrom the largest national labor organization serving federal employees. In preparation for the\nseminar, each panelist was asked to address three questions regarding Circular policy:\n \n  Does the use of OMB Circular A-76, in contracting DOD activities, save money? Are there\nperformance metrics in place to determine what the savings really are?  \n  Is OMB Circular A-76 the only viable option to reduce costs?  \n  How will outsourcing affect U.S. national security and the U.S. military's war-fighting\ncapability?  \n \n  In their presentations and discussions, every member of the panel agreed that the Clinton\nAdministration has sought to revise OMB Circular A-76 as a way to reduce government costs and\nincrease the government's efficiency. Panelists praised certain aspects of OMB Circular A-76\nbecause of its organization and level of detail. However, there was a spirited debate between\npanelists and seminar attendees on the inherent problems with the Circular, how to fix them, and\nother options to reduce costs. The panel viewed OMB Circular A-76 policy and process as flawed,\nand described the process as onerous and adversarial. Panelists spoke forcefully about the urgent\nneed to change the way that the government conducts its business; in many respects, the seminar\npresentations and ensuing discussions extended beyond OMB Circular A-76; they encompassed the\nfuture direction of competitive outsourcing within DOD.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30574",
          "sha1": "963057f0bccccd081ba5fdb98029747c9114bab2",
          "filename": "files/20000530_RL30574_963057f0bccccd081ba5fdb98029747c9114bab2.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000530_RL30574_963057f0bccccd081ba5fdb98029747c9114bab2.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}